Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BBC: Will US use Iran military option?
BBC ^ | Thursday, 30 March 2006, 11:38 GMT 12:38 UK | Paul Reynolds World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website

Posted on 03/31/2006 12:29:04 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach

By Paul Reynolds


World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website


A US Air force stealth bomber painted with the Stars and Stripes for an air show (US Air force picture)

The US has the military capability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities

If the current diplomatic efforts to get Iran to suspend its nuclear fuel enrichment activities do not work, it is inevitable that at some stage, attention will be turned to discussion of a military option.

That means, in practice, an air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities by the United States and/or Israel.

The US could certainly carry out such an attack, with cruise missiles and with B-2, other Stealth bombers and B-52 bombers armed with satellite guided bombs.

However Iran's nuclear plants are widely spread out and one is buried deep underground, so an attack would need to be sustained and wide-ranging.

Israel might also be able to do it. Not long ago it bought some bunker-busting bombs from the US, but it would be much more of a challenge.

'Civilian programme'

Nobody involved in the diplomatic round says this is an active proposition at the moment.

However, President Bush has stated that the US will not accept Iran as a nuclear-armed state.

John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN, in New York, 29 March 2006
Hawk John Bolton has said the US will use all tools at its disposal

It is possible that he will interpret Iran's programme as a threat, even though Iran says it will not build a bomb but wants the technology only to make fuel for civil nuclear power. It is allowed to do make its own fuel under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Vice-President Cheney said last year that Israel might act first and "let the rest of the world worry about picking up the diplomatic pieces afterwards".

And one of the administration's leading hawks, John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, warned Iran recently of "painful consequences" and of using "all tools at our disposal" if its nuclear programme was not stopped.

It was perhaps significant that Mr Bolton was speaking at a meeting of Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. This is a powerful lobbying group and its priorities are closely watched to see their effect on US policies. At the moment, one of Aipac's priorities is Iran.

In the final analysis, the US might face what is being called the McCain moment. This is what Senator John McCain said: "There is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option. That is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Red lines

However, the dilemma might be more difficult than that because Iran might not became "nuclear-armed". It might simply become nuclear-capable.

If Iran chose to do so, and it says it will not so choose, it could be in a position to build a bomb by 2009 or 2010

The technology in question can be used for both civilian and military purposes.

If Iran does not go down the military road, and it says it will not, there will be many governments around the world who will argue that it should be allowed to enrich fuel, under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The timetable is uncertain but an assessment by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington says that Iran might be able to assemble enough centrifuges by 2007, and enrich significant amounts of fuel by 2008.

Those could be the red lines for the US and Israel. If Iran chose to do so, and it says it will not so choose, it could be in a position to build a bomb by 2009 or 2010, according to this assessment.

Iraqi reactor raid

So would the US agree to enrichment or would it attack? Or would it concentrate on encouraging a change of government and policy in Iran and marshalling its allies into imposing sanctions?

The UN Security Council as things stand is unlikely to do much in the way of sanctions, given Russian and Chinese opposition.

Both the US and Israel have probably made contingency plans for an attack. That would be no surprise. It is what the military does in many situations.

In June 1981, the Israeli air force bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, south of Baghdad, and that raid is often used as the example of what might happen this time.

However, the raid illustrates both the feasibility of such a raid and its longer-term drawbacks.

The raid did indeed destroy the plant but it also spurred Iraq to develop a nuclear capability in secrecy - and it nearly succeeded.

'War declared'

The Israelis can argue that they achieved a delay that proved crucial. But history might not repeat itself.

Iran might, for example, simply leave the NPT, as it has the right to do, and go ahead with nuclear development anyway. That could set the scene for further attacks over a long period of time.

The United States has the capability to come out of the clear blue sky and destroy the Iranian military infrastructure

Analyst Dan Plesch

Iran might also retaliate, against US interests in Iraq and the Gulf, and might use the militant group Hezbollah in southern Lebanon to attack Israel. The region could be in uproar.

For all these reasons, and no doubt also because of the pressing US preoccupation in Iraq, the military option has not come to the fore.

There is a small group of experts and analysts, however, who think that it will come.

An article by veteran military watcher Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker in January 2005 helped lead the way.

He quoted a "former high level intelligence official" as saying: "Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy."

Bushehr nuclear power station (image: DigitalGlobe)
Iran has a number of nuclear installations in operation

The "war" would not be an invasion of Iran but subversion leading, it would be hoped, to regime-change and an air attack if necessary. Mr Hersh indicated he felt such a subversion effort had already begun.

On this side of the Atlantic, Dan Plesch, Research Associate at the London School of Oriental and African Studies, is proclaiming the same message.

He gave a speech analysing the options recently and told the BBC News website: "The United States has the capability to come out of the clear blue sky and destroy the Iranian military infrastructure."

He went on: "You can say we are being hysterical and are a band of doom-mongers. But I fear the US has lost confidence in the UN or the EU to solve this. And it could do it militarily.

"It has reorganised its strategic forces in a doctrine known as Global Strike, meaning that from a standing start it can strike anywhere in the world in a short time. That gives it the capability."

All this does not mean it will happen. It does mean it is being debated.

Of course, the legality of any attack would be hard to justify. The British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters this week: "I don't happen to believe that military action has a role to play in any event. We could not justify it under Article 51 of the UN charter which permits self defence."

In the absence of Security Council approval, the US might argue that its interests in the Gulf were at stake and that its ally Israel was at risk.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iran
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

1 posted on 03/31/2006 12:29:07 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Bombing them is 26 years overdue.


2 posted on 03/31/2006 12:30:43 PM PST by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

No, the Israelis will use the military option.


3 posted on 03/31/2006 12:36:43 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I'm all for praying night and day up until the point that they still don't get it, then destroying their government and WMD capabilies. I'm not for rebuilding so much.


4 posted on 03/31/2006 12:38:17 PM PST by samcgwire (samcgwire was not here today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"The United States has the capability to come out of the clear blue sky and destroy the Iranian military infrastructure"

And when / if this happens it will very likely come via this route - Not much talk / hype beforehand -

But still likely a ways off from happening -

5 posted on 03/31/2006 12:40:07 PM PST by SevenMinusOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Fred Barnes & Mort Kondracke said we won't... they both alluded to “let Israel do it”. Mara Liason went so far as to say that Iran will get nuclear weapons... it's a given.
6 posted on 03/31/2006 12:43:14 PM PST by johnny7 (“Nah, I ain’t Jewish, I just don’t dig on swine, that’s all.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnny7

I caught that newscast on Fox last night, too. But Mara said Iran would have nukes in five years, she didn't say one way or the other whether we or Israel would bomb Iran now. Israel just had elections...I don't know what the new prime minister's stance is on defending Israel through preemptive strikes. He's not much of a conservative, though.


7 posted on 03/31/2006 12:47:34 PM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

"No, the Israelis will use the military option."

Regardless of who attacks them, any overt attack on Iranian soil will percipitate a regional war the size of which hasn't been seen since WWII. I really don't think either Israel (new leadership) or the US has the political capital to pre-emptively attack Iran at this point in time without completely decimating Iraq's security and political situation.


8 posted on 03/31/2006 12:47:50 PM PST by cccp_hater (Just the facts please)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

"If Iran does not go down the military road, and it says it will not, there will be many governments around the world who will argue that it should be allowed to enrich fuel, under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."

THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE PROBABLY SUPPORTED NORTH KOREA'S PEACEFUL ENRICHMENT AS WELL.


9 posted on 03/31/2006 12:52:37 PM PST by moose2004 (You Can Run But You Can't Hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnny7
Mara is mistaken, and I have no idea how she reached that conclusion.

The most striking apsect of this BBC article is the complete lack of recognition of the extremely severe threat from a nuclear-armed Iran to the US, Britain, and Israel. This clearly shows how the world has been dangerously lulled into complacency about nuclear weapons by 60 years of non-use of nukes and Pakistan's recent acquisition of nuclear weapons. Thank God that the reckless and exceptionally risk-tolerant Clinton Administration is gone, and that Israel will not accept a nucler-armed Iran.

10 posted on 03/31/2006 12:58:54 PM PST by carl in alaska (The raven watching news of the Florida recounts stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven..."NeverGore.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: moose2004
The BBC is a Leftists outfit :

There is a book,:

Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left (Hardcover)

*******************************

And a review:

****************************************

Communism is dead. Long live Islam!, September 30, 2004

Reviewer: Kevin Beckman (Sacramento, CA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
It sounds absurd: why would Leftists make common cause with a religion that is diametrically opposed to everything the Left stands for? David Horowitz explains that it is really quite logical given the Left's first principle: America is evil and anything or anyone opposed to America is good.

Part I of the book is a brief history of 9/11 through the end of major combat operations in Iraq, and the Left's behavior during this time. Horowitz includes the reaction of Katha Pollitt of The Nation magazine: "The flag stands for vengeance, and jingoism, and war." Anthropology Professor Nicholas De Genova of Columbia University said he hoped for "a million Mogadishus." His colleagues objected, not to the despicable sentiment, but because of the bad publicity it brought their "teach-in." Our tax dollars at work!

Part II is the heart of the book: a history of the American and international Left. Horowitz calls them Neo-Communists or Neocoms. The Neocoms of old believed in the Soviet Union the way religious people believe in God. Those who spied for the USSR didn't see themselves as traitors to their country, but rather loyalists to humanity and an ideal of America that's never existed. When the Soviet Union fell, a few of them stopped for some introspection but most pressed on as if nothing happened. Communist historian Eric Hobsbawm put it nicely: "Without the Revolution, my life and my work are meaningless."

Now that they no longer have to defend an indefensible regime, modern Neocoms are simply nihilists. They know what they oppose but they have no plans for the aftermath of the revolution which they still believe will happen. They don't know what they want, but they know what they hate: the United States, capitalism personified.

So why are they allying with radical Islam? Horowitz says that the Neocoms still believe in Marx's dictum that "religion is the opiate of the masses." Once private property is abolished, the need for religion will vanish, and Islamic radicals will stop being Islamic and radical. The only thing standing in the way is the United States.

Sound insane? It is. They are. I highly recommend this book. Horowitz makes the insanity understandable.

11 posted on 03/31/2006 12:59:18 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska

A typo in post #10. Israel will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran.


12 posted on 03/31/2006 1:00:56 PM PST by carl in alaska (The raven watching news of the Florida recounts stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven..."NeverGore.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I think a lot of these people who hate America have serious psychological conflicts with authority figures in their lives. That is why they hate America, because America is powerful and to them all forms of power represent the misuse of authority. I had a friend who was a big liberal and had a strong dislike for big business, the military, and anybody with a lot of power. She also had huge psychological conflicts going on with her father and her family was totally dysfunctional. I see that kind of stuff simmering under the surface in most of these America haters. These neocoms and America haters need psychological counseling.


13 posted on 03/31/2006 1:10:05 PM PST by carl in alaska (The raven watching news of the Florida recounts stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven..."NeverGore.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hershey
I'm not sure that ANYBODY has the spine to attack Iran... the west thinks that if Iraq winds down, everything will go back to normal. Israel also is living an illusion, believing they can deal with the PA and Hamas... who have been 'leavened' with al Qaeda cells.

We're revisiting the 1930's again pal... sending aggressors the message of weakness and confusion. We may want to walk away from the Islamo-nazi's... but they won't stop until they bring us to our knees.

14 posted on 03/31/2006 1:15:55 PM PST by johnny7 (“Nah, I ain’t Jewish, I just don’t dig on swine, that’s all.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
This is like reading an article about a convicted serial murderer who wants to buy an Apache helicopter and 100 Hellfire missiles for "peaceful self-defense only." The police think that given his history, the murderer will use the chopper and the missiles to blow up his neighbors' houses, and therefore the police are trying to stop him from buying these weapons on the black market.

The BBC would, of course, say the convicted murderer should never be allowed to acquire these weapons systems. The nuclear negotiations with Iran are exactly the same kind of situation, except that the stakes are much greater and the cost of stopping Iran is much greater than the cost of stopping the murderer from buying the weapons. The big difference in these two situations is the cost to the world to stop Iran, and it's only because of this high cost that the BBC would even consider allowing Iran to build nuclear weapons. The BBC writer and many others in the west are focused primarily on the cost of stopping Iran and they're not correctly assessing the cost of not stopping Iran and the gravity of the threat from a nuclear-armed terrorist state such as Iran. The west needs to wake up and take a long, serious, analytical look at the short-term and long-term threat to the civilized world from Iranian nuclear weapons.

15 posted on 03/31/2006 1:46:16 PM PST by carl in alaska (The raven watching news of the Florida recounts stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven..."NeverGore.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"If Iran does not go down the military road, and it says it will not, there will be many governments around the world who will argue that it should be allowed to enrich fuel, under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."

The BBC doesn't care if Britain is nuked.

New Iran missiles can reach London
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1227123/posts


"The timetable is uncertain but an assessment by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington says that Iran might be able to assemble enough centrifuges by 2007, and enrich significant amounts of fuel by 2008."

Iran defies calls for freeze on nuclear research, restarts program-(50,000 centrifuges to be built)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555690/posts

Iran may have received advanced centrifuges: diplomats
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1561797/posts

Iran has built 5,000 centrifuges, says opposition
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555554/posts

Iran has built 5,000 centrifuges, says opposition
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555896/posts
16 posted on 03/31/2006 1:58:29 PM PST by familyop ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." --President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cccp_hater

I don't know about your Iraq comment -- the Iraqis and the Iranians do not like each other at all.


17 posted on 03/31/2006 2:02:37 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Ther lefties are going to get a very nasty shock if and when they ever become subjects of Sha'ria law.


18 posted on 03/31/2006 2:05:34 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

"I don't know about your Iraq comment -- the Iraqis and the Iranians do not like each other at all."

You'd be surprised how folks pull together when they are fighting a common "enemy".


19 posted on 03/31/2006 2:15:26 PM PST by cccp_hater (Just the facts please)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

Especially the Feminazis......


20 posted on 03/31/2006 4:08:35 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson